Although the traditional figure of “Punch” is associated with punishments dealt out indiscriminately, it appears in the old electioneering days he was the agent for distributing illicit rewards for iniquitous acts. In the case of a “controverted election” for the borough of Shaftesbury (Dorset) the evidence produced vividly recalls Hogarth’s representation of an election broadside, “Punch, Candidate for Guzzletown,” introduced in his picture of “Canvassing for Votes.” After the general election, 1774, it was alleged that the sitting members, Sykes and Rumbold, by themselves or their agents, had been guilty of bribery, while it was attempted to be shown that Mortimer, who was the petitioner, had promised money to procure his election. The trial lasted four weeks, and among the points of evidence was the following indictment against the manœuvres of “Punch:”—Money, to the amount of several thousand pounds, had been given among the electors,[58] in sums of twenty guineas a man (654 votes were recorded in 1774; 532 being for Sykes and Rumbold). The persons who were entrusted with the distribution of this money, and who were chiefly the magistrates of the town, fell upon a very singular and absurd contrivance, in hopes of being able thereby to hide through what channel it was conveyed to the electors. A person concealed under a ludicrous and fantastical disguise, and called by the name of “Punch,” was placed in a small apartment, and, through a hole in the door, delivered out to the voters parcels containing the twenty guineas; upon which they were conducted to another apartment in the same house, where they found a person called “Punch’s secretary,” and signed notes for the value, but which were made payable to an imaginary character, to whom they had given the name of “Glenbucket.” Two of the witnesses, called by the counsel for the petitioner, swore that they had seen “Punch” through the hole in the door, and that they knew him to be one Matthews, an alderman of Shaftesbury; and, as the counsel for the petitioner had endeavoured to prove, an agent for the sitting members. It was said that those voters who admitted that they had received “Punch’s” money, had at the poll taken the bribery oath; it was contended for the other side that this was not legal evidence, that “it would be unjust to suffer what a man had said in conversation, and without an oath, to invalidate what he had solemnly sworn.” The committee determined that, with regard to supposed agents, evidence should be first produced to establish the agency, before the bribery by such persons should be gone into. In the sequel it was determined that the two sitting members were not duly elected, and that the petitioner should be returned. “Punch,” his exertions, and his profuse distribution of bribes proved a grievous failure.

Not only was bribery freely practised under one or another disguise, but even the result of the petitions and scrutinies were made the subject of corruption. In a controverted election for Sudbury, in 1780, for instance, the question was put to the committee, “Whether a person who had laid a wager of about £40 on the event of the petition was competent to give evidence in the cause?” the decision being in the affirmative. This Sudbury election was altogether an odd affair.

“The mayor was the returning officer, and the petitioner alleged that at the close of the poll it was declared in his favour, but that afterwards a scrutiny was illegally demanded, when the other candidates were pronounced duly elected.” It was given in the evidence “that the election began Sep. 8, 1780, about ten o’clock in the morning, and continued until it was dark: that the petitioner and his friends then desired the mayor to adjourn the poll to the following day; but that he refused, and proceeded all night by candlelight”—

the election ending between six and seven o’clock the following morning: “There was some tumult during a part of the poll, but that it was upon the whole a very peaceable election.” This goes far to prove that an election must have been an extraordinarily turbulent business a century back, when proceedings varied by “a tumult during part of the poll” was admitted to be peaceful in an unusual degree.

The Shaftesbury arrangements for presenting voters with packets of twenty guineas were outdone by the electors of Shoreham, who combined and resolved themselves into a joint-stock company, that they themselves might derive the advantage from their borough which in other cases was monopolized by the patrons, or holders of bailiwicks. The suffrages being originally in the mayor and burgesses, these electors, with a forethought superior to their generation, organized themselves into a compact league, or caucus, for electioneering purposes; but not with the intention of resisting and keeping out corrupt practices: the nature of this compact was disclosed during the hearing of the petition of Thomas Rumbold, on the election of a member in place of Sir Samuel Cornish deceased, and is set down in the Journals of the House (vol. 33), 1770-1. It appeared that the petitioner was duly elected, those who voted for him, to the number of eighty-seven, taking the bribery oath; as to the other candidates, thirty-seven votes were given for Purling and four for James; but the returning officer placed queries against the names of seventy-six of the petitioner Rumbold’s voters, and immediately on the close of the poll declared Purling duly elected. The fourth plea related that in this borough of Shoreham had subsisted for many years a body which had assumed the name of the “Christian Society,” though its organization was quite outside the diffusion of benevolence or Christianity; none but electors for representatives in parliament were admitted into the society, but the great majority of those who had votes were enrolled. A clerk was employed, and a meeting-place provided, where regular monthly and frequent occasional meetings were held, upon which gatherings a flag was hoisted to give notice to the members. About 1767, the members of the society entered into articles for raising and distributing small sums of money for charitable uses, these articles being designed to cover the real intention of the institution. The principal purpose of their meetings was for what they denominated burgessing business. An oath of secrecy was administered to all the members, who farther entered into a bond, under a penalty of five hundred pounds, to bring them all together with regard to burgessing; but otherwise the conditions of the bond were not allowed to appear. Upon any vacancy in the representation of the borough, the society always appointed a committee to treat with the candidates for the purchase of the seat, and the committees were constantly instructed to get the most money and make the best bargain they could; the society had no other purpose in view, and had no standing committee. On a false report of the death of the sitting member, Sir Samuel Cornish, the society was called together by the signal of the flag. On that meeting, which was numerously attended, the members declared that they would support the highest bidder; but some of their number, including Hugh Roberts, the returning officer impeached in the petition, expressed themselves offended at such a declaration, and declared that they were afraid of the consequences, for the society was nothing but a heap of bribery, and withdrew from the body; but two months later, one of these ex-members returning to a meeting of the society, was treated with harsh expressions, and was told he came among them as a spy. The society, however, continued to meet, their gatherings being more frequent near election time. It was said that, on the death of Sir Samuel Cornish, when a vacancy occurred, a committee was appointed to treat for the seat with the incoming candidate, the members of the said committee themselves being careful to abstain from voting, though they were there on the day of election; three days before the polling, the society was reported to be dissolved, in order to escape the odium of proceedings on petition, but that the meetings had been resumed since. In the face of this evidence, Mr. Purling’s counsel acquainted the court “that he could not carry his case further than by the witnesses examined, and could not impeach Mr. Rumbold’s election or affect his votes.” Although this closed the petitioning case, it was resolved that a further inquiry ought to be made into the transactions of the society, and a bill was ordered “to incapacitate certain persons from voting at elections,” together with an address to the king to order the attorney-general to “prosecute certain persons for an illegal and corrupt conspiracy in relation to the late election for Shoreham.” The bill was carried, printed, copies served on the offenders, passed through the House, agreed to by the Lords, and received the royal assent. The returning officer was ordered into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms; he was finally brought to the bar of the House to be reprimanded and discharged.

New Shoreham appears later under the patronage of the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Egremont; the suffrage in 1771, after the extraordinary federation described in the foregoing, was extended to forty-shilling freeholders, “in the rape of Bramber,” in which Shoreham is situated.

R. B. Sheridan, the brilliant but unstable genius,[59] sat for Stafford from 1780, until that ill-considered attempt to represent the city of Westminster in the place of his deceased friend, the great Charles James Fox, which completed his financial ruin. “Sherry” was notorious for looseness in his accounts, and it is curious to find one of the few circumstantial statements of election outlays calculated upon this unbusinesslike representative’s borough expenses for the first parliament in which he represented Stafford—always a moderate place, as prices ruled,—Sheridan being brought in chiefly by the influence of the shoemakers, an extensive body there.

R. B. SHERIDAN, ESQ., EXPENSES AT THE BOROUGH OF STAFFORD, FOR ELECTION, ANNO 1784.

£s.d.
248 Burgesses paid £5 5s. each130200
YEARLY EXPENSES SINCE.
£s.d.
House Rent and Taxes[60]2366
Servant at 6s per week, Board Wages15120
Ditto, Yearly Wages880
Coals, &c.1000
5766
Ale Tickets4000
Half the Members’ Plate2500
Swearing Young Burgesses1000
Subscription to the Infirmary550
Do., Clergymen’s Widows220
Ringers440
86110
class="i4">One year143176
class="i4">Multiplied by years6
86350
Total expense of six years’ parliament, exclusive ofexpenses incurred during the time of election and your own annual expenses£216550

(Moore’s “Life of Sheridan,” vol. i. p. 405.)